“Booking.com can be trademarked — 4th Circuit”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Indiana asks Supreme Court to overturn ruling that blocked abortion law”: Shari Rudavsky of The Indianapolis Star has this report.

And in somewhat related news, The Gasden (Ala.) Times reports that “21 states support Supreme Court review of Alabama abortion law.”

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes first public appearance since cancer surgery”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“Supreme Court rejects GOP delay bid in gerrymandering lawsuit”: Jonathan Oosting of The Detroit News has this report.

“Iowa Republicans introduce bill that gives lawmakers, governor more power over courts”: Barbara Rodriguez and Stephen Gruber-Miller of The Des Moines Register have this report.

According to the article, “If the current version of the plan is approved, it would undo parts of a merit-based selection process that Iowans put into the state Constitution by vote in the early 1960s.”

“Court reinstates litigation against Merck over Vioxx”: Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

“Will the Supreme Court Take Up Racial Discrimination in Cable Television? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals won’t disrupt prior rulings allowing a $10 billion suit against Charter and a $20 billion suit against Comcast for refusing to carry Byron Allen’s networks.” Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter about a superseding opinion that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“D.C. judge: No actual damages, no claims for data breach victims.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Trump’s DC court pick faces first step in what may be another ugly confirmation battle”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for D.C. Circuit nominee Neomi J. Rao is scheduled to begin tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. eastern time.

“Neomi Rao, Nominee to Replace Brett Kavanaugh, Heads Agency That’s Been Stalling Sexual Harassment Guidance”: David Dayen of The Intercept has this report.

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Liberal activists target Kavanaugh’s replacement Neomi Rao ahead of confirmation hearing.”

“How Not to Foul Up Your Appeal, Part Two: The Appellate Brief.” This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column will appear in tomorrow’s issue of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

If you missed part one from December 2018, which focused on the notice of appeal, you can access it here. If you are wondering where my January 2019 column can be found, I received last month off for good behavior.

“McClatchy buyouts could claim chain’s full-time Guantanamo reporter”: Erik Wemple of The Washington Post has this report about Carol Rosenberg, who has thoroughly covered Guantanamo for The Miami Herald since January 2002.

This blog came into existence in May 2002, and I have linked to Ms. Rosenberg’s unparalleled Guantanamo coverage repeatedly since then. At some point, Ms. Rosenberg joined the ranks of “How Appealing” readers and thereafter sent me a kind note thanking me for featuring her work on my blog and enclosing various items of Miami Herald-related swag.

“How Liberals Learned To Love Scalia-Style Constitutional Originalism: Progressives lean into the Constitution with the new conservative Supreme Court.” Paul Blumenthal of HuffPost has this report.

“Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor speaks at Brooklyn Bar Association”: Rob Abruzzese of The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has this report, which includes Justice Sotomayor’s thoughts on the New York Yankees off-season thus far. Meanwhile, only nine days from now . . . .

“Louisiana abortion law won’t go into effect Monday as the Supreme Court buys itself time”: Tucker Higgins of CNBC has this report.

“Dems hope to draw blood from potential Trump SCOTUS pick; Conservatives say liberals are bent on ‘destroying’ the activist Neomi Rao before Trump can put her on his Supreme Court short list”: Andrew Restuccia, Gabby Orr, and Anita Kumar of Politico have this report.

“Has the Supreme Court lost its legitimacy? The good news is that looking back at the court’s often tumultuous history, today’s partisan split is not unprecedented.” Peter Irons has this essay online at NBC News.

“Originalism off the Ground”: At “Dorf on Law,” Eric Segall has a post that begins, “Professors Will Baude and Stephen Sachs are at it again. They have continued their quest to convince the world that originalism is, indeed, our law.”

“Should Judges Pay Attention To Trump’s Tweets?” Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux has this post at FiveThirtyEight.

“Trump Justice Dept. reversing Obama-era positions on discrimination policies”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“The Northam Controversy, the Kavanaugh Controversy, and Long-Past Misbehavior”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Visiting Judges”: Law professor Marin K. Levy has posted this article, forthcoming in the California Law Review, online at SSRN.

“Two years in, Trump’s appeals court confirmations at a historic high point”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

“Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings”: In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column. It begins, “The federal judiciary has built an imposing pay wall around its court filings, charging a preposterous 10 cents a page for electronic access to what are meant to be public records. A pending lawsuit could help tear that wall down.”

“OT2018 #17: ‘The Most Distinguished Recording Location.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Dan Epps, via this link.